Click the case name for better results:

Re Trade Marks Act 1994 Trade Marks Nos 1338514 (in Class 5) and 1402537 (in Class 3) in the name of Laboratories Goemar SA and Applications for Revocation thereof Nos 10073 and 10074 by La Mer Technology Inc: ChD 20 Jun 2003

A case had been referred to the court as to the interpetation of the articles in the Directive. The court replied asking whether the subsequent Ansul judgement answered the questions raised.
Held: By agreement with the parties, only one of the . .

In Re ‘Swiss Miss’ Trademark: CA 20 Jul 1998

The test for confusion in Trade Marks context is wider than that for passing off. The use of a name which suggested manufacture in Switzerland when there was no connection with Switzerland, was misleading and deceptive and registration as trade mark was to be refused. Citations: Times 20-Jul-1998 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 11 Jurisdiction: … Continue reading In Re ‘Swiss Miss’ Trademark: CA 20 Jul 1998

General Electric Co v General Electric Co Ltd; GE TM; Re GE Trade Mark: HL 1972

Lord Diplock said: ‘The common law of trade marks before 1875 The use by manufacturers of distinctive marks upon goods which they had made is of very ancient origin, but legal recognition of trade marks as a species of incorporeal property was first accorded by the Court of Chancery in the first half of the … Continue reading General Electric Co v General Electric Co Ltd; GE TM; Re GE Trade Mark: HL 1972

Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters and Trade and Barrel Ltd: ChD 25 Jul 2000

The court considered the nature of use in relation to goods under the 1994 Act, and the Directive: ‘It may well be that the concept of ‘use in relation to goods’ is different for differing purposes. Much may turn on the public conception of the use. For instance, if you buy Kodak film in Boots … Continue reading Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters and Trade and Barrel Ltd: ChD 25 Jul 2000

In Re Trade Mark No 2,023,949: ChD 18 Dec 1998

Where a sign or name had been used overwhelmingly with a descriptive or technical function, it was not validly registered as a trade mark. Name used in relevant public as an indicator of type not a designator of origin. Citations: Times 18-Dec-1998 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 3 Intellectual Property Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: … Continue reading In Re Trade Mark No 2,023,949: ChD 18 Dec 1998

In Re Dualit Trade Mark; Dualit (Toaster Shapes): ChD 19 Jul 1999

An application to register a shape as a trade mark, on the basis of the shape only and without association with any other indication, would fail unless some particular element of the shape was driven by more than the need to produce a technical effect. Where an association with a particular shape with the applicant … Continue reading In Re Dualit Trade Mark; Dualit (Toaster Shapes): ChD 19 Jul 1999

Bessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark: CA 28 May 2002

The Reef pop group applied to register ‘REEF’ for Classes 25 and 26 – e.g. T-shirts, badges, etc. South Cone opposed them as registered proprietors of ‘Reef Brazil’ for the footwear which also was included in Class 25. South’s reputation was primarily amongst surfers. The Hearing Officer conducted a ‘multi-factorial’ comparison, and rejected the opposition … Continue reading Bessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark: CA 28 May 2002

Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering): CACD 20 Nov 2002

The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof. Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to statutory exceptions. To place a legal (persuasive) burden of proof on the defendant … Continue reading Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering): CACD 20 Nov 2002

Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another: ChD 21 May 2013

Mark use in search engine was infringing use The claimant mark owner alleged that the defendant, in paying a search engine to use the claimants mark as a search keyword was infringing its rights. The defendant argued that the use of the same sign in different contexts could amount to a different and non-infringing use. … Continue reading Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another: ChD 21 May 2013

Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd: PC 27 Jun 1994

(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of Parliamentary privilege. Held: A Defendant may not use libel proceedings to impugn … Continue reading Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd: PC 27 Jun 1994

UK Registered Trade Marks Nos 1338514 (in Class 5) and 1402537 (in Class 3) in the name of Laboratories Goemar SA and Applications for Revocation thereof Nos 10073 and 10074 by La Mer Technology Inc: ChD 19 Dec 2001

The applicants sought revocation of the defendant’s trade marks on the grounds that they had not been implemented after five years. It was sensible to go straight from the Directive, rather than the Act which implemented it. The onus was on the . .

Windows ‘R’ Us (Trade Mark: Inter Partes): IPO 8 Aug 2006

References: [2006] UKIntelP o22406 Links: Bailii Coram: Mrs J Pike ICO Section 5(2)(b): Invalidity action failed. Section 5(3): Invalidity action failed Section 5(4)(a): Invalidity action failed. Section 56(2): Invalidity action failed The applicant in these proceedings is the owner of a number of registered marks (UK & CTM) such as TOYS’R’US, MUMS’R’US, BABIES’R’US, ‘R’US etc … Continue reading Windows ‘R’ Us (Trade Mark: Inter Partes): IPO 8 Aug 2006

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Premier Brands Uk Ltd v Typhoon Europe Ltd: ChD 3 Feb 2000

The claimants owned a major brand mark used in the distribution of tea. The defendants operated in the sale of kitchen equipment. Whether a sign infringed a mark without due cause was to be resolved at trial by the judge on the facts. The infringer had to show that he had good cause for his … Continue reading Premier Brands Uk Ltd v Typhoon Europe Ltd: ChD 3 Feb 2000

Premier Luggage and Bags Ltd v Premier Company (Uk) Ltd and Another: ChD 17 Oct 2000

The word ‘Premier’ although devoid of distinctive character in itself, but having been registered as a trade mark, had acquired a sufficient distinctiveness to justify and found an action for infringement and passing off. The test was whether through use of the trademark, a sufficient number both of potential purchasers of the claimants goods, and … Continue reading Premier Luggage and Bags Ltd v Premier Company (Uk) Ltd and Another: ChD 17 Oct 2000

Discovery Communications Inc v Discovery Fm Ltd: IHCS 25 Jan 2000

It was no defence to an action for trade mark infringement to assert that although the registration covered activities of the type undertaken, the claimant did not actually provide services of that precise type. It is in the nature of such registrations that they reserve to the mark holder the right to develop his activities … Continue reading Discovery Communications Inc v Discovery Fm Ltd: IHCS 25 Jan 2000

Decon Laboratories Ltd v Fred Baker Scientific Ltd and Another: ChD 28 Feb 2001

The procedure for applying for the registration of a European Trade Mark did not involve the same issues as applied in England as to the use of the mark within the first five years, nor any statement of a bona fide intention to use the mark. Only exceptionally therefore could a European Trade Mark be … Continue reading Decon Laboratories Ltd v Fred Baker Scientific Ltd and Another: ChD 28 Feb 2001

Barclays Bank Plc v RBS Advanta: ChD 8 Feb 1996

A party complaining about the use of a trade mark in a comparative advert is required to show some dishonesty. Section 10(6) of the Act was described as ‘home grown’ rather than derived directly from the Directive. Judges: Laddiie J Citations: Times 08-Feb-1996, [1996] RPC 307 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 10(6) Cited by: Cited … Continue reading Barclays Bank Plc v RBS Advanta: ChD 8 Feb 1996

Arsenal Football Club Plc v Reed: ChD 6 Apr 2001

The defendant had sold memorabilia using the claimant’s name, and marks for thirty years. He sought to make it clear that the products were not sourced from the club. They were purchased, generally, by people who wore them as badges of allegiance to the club. The claim of passing off failed because the club had … Continue reading Arsenal Football Club Plc v Reed: ChD 6 Apr 2001

Allied Domecq Spirits and Wine Ltd v Murray Mcdavid Ltd: SCS 9 Dec 1997

Old Trade Mark infringement cases are to be viewed only with great care; on balance of convenience, the use of trade marked place name is to be allowed. Citations: Times 09-Dec-1997 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 11(2)(b) Jurisdiction: Scotland Intellectual Property, Scotland Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77754

Regina v McCrudden: CACD 2005

Laws LJ: ‘Section 92(5) affords a positive and specific defence as to the use of the trade mark by the defendant. It does not provide a general defence of good faith … It seems to us that the provisions contained in section 92 have been devised to constitute a rigorous statutory code, involving offences initially … Continue reading Regina v McCrudden: CACD 2005

Mark: EVERY IDEA SAFELY DELIVERED: TMR 29 Nov 2000

IPO Appointed Person. Judges: Mr S Thorley QC Citations: 2183690, 2200534 Links: IPO Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Citing: See Also – Every Idea Safely Delivered (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) O-380-99 IPO 15-Oct-1999 cw Ex Parte Decisions – Trade Marks IPO Ex Parte. . . Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. … Continue reading Mark: EVERY IDEA SAFELY DELIVERED: TMR 29 Nov 2000

Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik; Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser Busch Inc: ChD 20 May 1998

It is possible to grant two identical trade marks in respect of beer where either there was no confusion, or an honest concurrent use could justify such double registrations. Citations: Times 20-May-1998 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 11 12(2) Cited by: Appeal from – Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Bodvar Narodni Podnik; Budejovicky Bodvar Narodni Podnik … Continue reading Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik; Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser Busch Inc: ChD 20 May 1998

Re Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc: CA 19 May 1999

The name ‘Elvis Presley’ was not of itself sufficiently distinctive to justify registration as a trade mark, being neither adapted to distinguish any particular goods nor capable of distinguishing them. Citations: Gazette 19-May-1999 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85762

Cable and Wireless plc v British Telecommunications plc: ChD 1998

The court set out the applicable legal principles in trade mark infringement. The court considered the elements necessary to establish a defence under s10(6): The primary objective of section 10(6) of the 1996 Act is to permit comparative advertising . . As long as the use of a competitor’s mark is honest, there is nothing … Continue reading Cable and Wireless plc v British Telecommunications plc: ChD 1998

Jonathan Ball, McDermot Will and Emery(A Firm) v The Eden Project Ltd, The Eden Trust: PatC 11 Apr 2001

One of two project developers registered a Trade Mark constituting the name of the proposed development in his own name. The assets were, as always intended, later transferred into the limited company, and the two developers were directors. It was held that company name could not be divorced entirely from its trading name, and the … Continue reading Jonathan Ball, McDermot Will and Emery(A Firm) v The Eden Project Ltd, The Eden Trust: PatC 11 Apr 2001